K SESHAPPA Vs. ST FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Mr. S. Harish Kumar and Smt. Hymavathi for respondent.

(2.) THIS revision petition arises from the order dated 4. 7. 1998 whereby the Trial Court has ordered that the consideration and decision of the application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A), CPC shall be decided along with the merits of the case i. e. I. A. 5 and 8 will be considered along with the merits of the case i. e. , the suit.

(3.) THE facts of the case in the nut-shell are that, in the suit for specific performance of contract to execute the agreement of lease and to enforce the agreement of contract of lease, the plaintiff has moved an application under Order 39 seeking injunction directing the deferfdant not to alienate the suit property in any manner. The Court granted the injunction order. Thereafter, according to the plaintiff, defendant committed breach of injunction order by alienating the property to some third person and the plaintiff moved the application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) of the Code seeking action for breach of injunction order. As pointed out by the learned Counsel as well, to prove his contention the plaintiff has appeared in witness-box and has examined the witness and produced the evidence and the defendant has also produced his evidence consisting of oral witness and four documents. The Court observes that,